Hi,
John, I agree with you completely. Wonder no longer, as there is someone
out there who thinks the same way you do !!!!
Regards
Lubna
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 Solipsist9@xxxxxxx wrote:
> In a message dated 97-04-11 02:05:34 EDT, lobster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mitchell
> wilson) writes:
>
> << no, you're the one who is asserting the extraordinary: that our species
> killing one another is natural. so the burden of proof is on you.
> therefore, the question is not why do we not kill, but rather why do we
> kill.
>
> feral children were never homicidal maniacs, yet no social institutions
> had taught them not to kill.
>
> and, come on! first of all, you are muddying the waters between idioms,
> actualities and drives. let me ask you: have you ever REALLY wanted to
> kill someone? i mean, have you ever wanted to pick up a hammer, and
> REALLY wanted to smash in someone's skull? i don't believe that you
> have. you mat have FRAMED you displeasure or aggression in those terms,
> as do little children and adults, neither of who literally mean what
> they say. and the fact that some people HAVE killed does not mean that
> everyone WANTS to kill. only a true psychopath WANTS to kill. so
> saying that you "want to kill" someone or that people kill WHEN they
> assume that they HAVE to kill is not wanting, in a natural way, to
> kill.
>
> and yes, there is an essential human nature: that which we are engaging
> in right now. let me ask you, could we communicate, as is our nature,
> were we to kill one another? or do you simply not believe that humans
> are social creatures? and if we are, which we are, then isn't killing
> when something has gone awry? and if killing is part of being social,
> then asking why do we not kill is like asking why do we not rape? or
> maybe you believe that to rape is natural too?
>
> well, i've picked on you for long enough. and i'm looking forward to a
> response.
>
> >>
>
> while this response was not addressed to me, i feel the need to reply. you
> are relying on the supposed validity of many premises in your argument:
>
> a. killing is not natural
> b. no sane human has ever WANTED to kill someone
> c. only a psychopath wants to kill
> d. there is an essential human nature
> e. all human beings are social creatures
> f. killing is essentially synonymous with rape.
>
> it seems to me that the burden of proof is now in your hands. humans are
> animals. there are other animals whose "nature" includes the things you are
> arguing against. why do you assume that humans do not have those instincts
> in there nature? if there is a human nature, is it not possible that we have
> replaced that nature with a "social" nature or social instincts? society is
> very possibly a human construction. to assume that how humans are today is
> the realization of how they should be or are by "nature" (ideally or
> actually), is a grand assumption about that supposed nature of human beings.
> in fact, doesn't our theorizing about these matters automatically
> predetermine our conclusions since we are part of a society? just wondering.
> john
> solipsist9@xxxxxxx
>
>